Staff Reports
As the Supreme Court season comes to a close, it's time for a quick rundown of the most important decisions the court has made this year, which have been a lot calmer than last year's. Last year, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was all over the news, but this time there has been a little bit of everything. Even though it's not a full analysis, this list of choices may be useful as a quick reference:
The Skinny on SCOTUS https://t.co/gNl5163pLW
— RedState (@RedState) June 24, 2023
Jones v. Hendrix: In 2000, Marcus Jones, a federal prisoner, was found guilty of two counts of illegal possession of a firearm by a felon and one count of making false claims to get a gun. The real question was whether Jones could now challenge his detention, since federal habeas corpus rules usually don't allow inmates to file more than one petition for habeas corpus. 28 USC 2241, which is the general habeas corpus statute, was used to decide that Jones can't go forward. The ruling was split 6-3.
Yegiazaryan v. Smagin: Yegiazaryan sued Smagin because he stole investment funds from a Moscow real estate business. Yegiazaryan, who lives in California, filed a lawsuit and went to the Supreme Court for help. A split ruling of 6-3 said that a foreign plaintiff whose only injury was to intangible property (a court judgment) has the kind of "domestic" injury needed to bring a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Arizona v. Navajo Nation: The Navajos filed a lawsuit to force the U.S. to take steps to get the Tribe the water it needed, as part of an 1868 peace pact between the Tribe and the U.S. The States of Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado took action against the Tribe to protect their rights in water from the Colorado River. A split ruling of 5-4 said that the treaty required the federal government not to take any steps that the Navajo Nation tried to figure out in terms of their rights to their water resources.
In Pugin v. Garland, it was decided that Fernando Cordero-Garcia and Jean Francois Pugin were not allowed to stay in the United States because they had committed serious crimes, one of which was "obstruction of justice." A split ruling by 6-3 said that an offense can "relate to obstruction of justice" for the purposes of this law, even if the offense doesn't require that an investigation or proceeding is going on.
Samia v. United States: The court decided by a vote of 6-3 that the Confrontation Clause does not stop the confession in this case. The petitioner, Adam Samia, was charged with a number of crimes connected to the murder-for-hire of a real estate broker.
United States v. Texas: The case was about the new enforcement rules set by the Department of Homeland Security. The rules say that ICE officers can only arrest and deport three types of illegal immigrants. A vote of 8-1 said that states didn't have the right to question the guidelines because it would cost them if the administration didn't follow the law.
Coinbase v. Bielski: Coinbase, an online currency site, didn't replace money that was stolen from its users' accounts. A split ruling of 5-4 says that a district court must stop its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal on the question of arbitrability is going on.
United States v. Hansen: A 7-2 ruling said that defendant Helaman Hansen ran a scam called "adult adoption." He got more than 450 people to pay him a large fee by telling them they would become U.S. citizens through adoption. He was found guilty of breaking a federal rule that makes it a crime to encourage or cause illegal immigration.
This is not a full guide, but it should help you understand the most important decisions the Supreme Court has made as the court season comes to an end. This year hasn't been as crazy as last year, but it's still great news for Republicans.
